The Issue The issue for consideration in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit authorizing the installation of an OSDS on property which he owns near the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida, in accordance with the provisions of Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of certain real property located in Dixie County, Florida, more particularly described as part of Section 30, Township 10 South, Range 14 East. The property is approximately 8.5 acres in size. The Petitioner purchased the property some ten-years ago, and the lot in question has never been platted. The petitioner purchased the property for purposes of constructing a residence for himself and his family. At the time that the Petitioner purchased the property, and since, there have been occupied homes on either side of the property served by septic tank and drain-field sewage disposal systems. There came a time when the Petitioner elected to construct a home on his property and applied to the Respondent for an OSDS permit on January 19, 1990. On April 20, 1990, after having its personnel make on-site inspections of the property, the Respondent determined that the propert, according to Suwannee River Water Management District calculations, lay beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The Respondent, therefore, denied the permit application. Pursuant to information obtained from a registered land surveyor, the benchmark elevation of the surface of the Petitioner's property is 14.56 feet above mean sea level ("MSL") The actual surface elevation is 6 inches lower than that or approximately 14 feet. The ten-year flood elevation level for the Petitioner's property, at the Suwannee River mile involved, is 17 feet above MSL. Thus, the surface of the Petitioner's property is some three feet beneath the ten-year flood elevation and were a drain-field system installed on the property, the bottom of the drain-field trench or absorption bed would be a greater distance beneath the ten-year flood elevation. A "mounded" septic tank and drain-field system might be feasible for the subject property because of the property's adequate size, although such a mounding might have to be approximately five feet or greater in height over the present grade level of the property. The Petitioner, however, did not adduce any testimony or evidence concerning the feasibility of such a mounded disposal system, including details of how it would be constructed and operated and whether there is adequate room on his property to build such a mounded system, including the required undisturbed land area around such a system. The Petitioner did not adduce testimony or evidence in support of the feasibility of any other alternative sewage treatment and disposal system for the subject property. In fact, the property is located within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River. Because of this, the rule cited hereinbelow would require that a registered engineer certify and adequately explain the manner and method by which such a mounded system could be built on this property within the regulatory floodway, without altering the level of the "base flood", as, for instance, by excavating an equal volume of fill from another location within the regulatory floodway. However, such engineering testimony and evidence was not offered by the Petitioner; therefore, it has not been established that such a mounded system is a feasible alternative nor has it been established that any other type of treatment and disposal system is a feasible alternative because of the dearth of such evidence. The Petitioner did not apply for a variance. In any event, however, although the Petitioner clearly has been placed at a hardship because of not being able to construct the retirement residence he has desired for years on the subject property, because of the inability, thus fail at least, to obtain an OSDS permit, the Petitioner has not established- with regard to the below- referenced variance criteria that no reasonable alternative exists to the installation of the subject proposed system beneath the present surface of the lot which would be beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The Petitioner has not offered evidence to establish that the installation of the proposed system will not adversely affect public health and will not degrade the surface and ground waters involved in the immediate area. Thus, the standards for the grant of a variance have not been established by the Petitioner's proof, although it is understood that the Petitioner did not leek a variance, at least as yet. In that connection, the Respondent asserts that the Petitioner was not accorded the opportunity to avail himself of the Department's variance procedure because of the Respondent's interpretation of the Governor's Executive Order 90- 14, which it opines precludes it from granting any variances or permits for OSDS's within the ten-year flood elevation. The Governor's Executive Order, which incorporated the "Suwannee River Task Force" recommendation to preclude such systems beneath the ten-year flood elevation, was entered on January 17, 1990. The Respondent has, in effect, interpreted that Executive Order as precluding it from exercising its discretion to entertain and grant or deny variance applications. The Petitioner's proof and, indeed, Respondent's Exhibit NO. 2 establishes that this property is relatively high in elevation, is well-drained, and not subject to frequent flooding, although it does lie beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The soil profile indicates that fine sand exists from the surface down to 72 inches. This type of soil promotes very good percolation of water and, thus, would result in adequate operation of a septic tank and drain field if all other appropriate standards and conditions necessary for such adequate operation were met. In fact, the wet season water table is some 36 inches beneath the surface; and, in general, this property has been shown to be well-suited to the installation of a septic tank and drain-field system, but for the ten-year flood elevation circumstance delineated above.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit, without prejudice to the Petitioner applying for and seeking a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting for the reasons found and concluded above, and without prejudice to applying and pursuing an OSDS permit application at a later time, should the Petitioner become able to demonstrate that alternative methods of treatment and disposal of the sewage effluent in question can feasibly be performed, within the bounds of the standards enunciated in the above-cited statutes and rules concerning on-site sewage disposal permitting. DONE AND ENTERED this of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3339 The Petitioner filed no proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-4. Accepted. Rejected, as incomplete and, therefore, not shown to be material. Accepted. Rejected, as not necessary to resolution of material issues and as immaterial. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Donald D. Kersey Route 2, Box 187 Chiefland, FL 32626 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
Findings Of Fact The permit Applicant and Co-Respondent, Florida Medical Facilities, Inc. is the owner and developer of a 60-acre tract of land upon which it has constructed a hospital and will construct various attendant laboratories, medical offices and the like. Additionally, the Applicant is the owner of approximately five acres of land adjacent to its original 60-acre site which lies on Morningside Drive in Englewood, Sarasota County, Florida. The Applicant proposes to construct and operate the wastewater treatment plant on that 5-acre parcel. The Applicant proposes to construct an extended aeration wastewater treatment plant and effluent disposal drain field system which will accommodate and dispose of all wastewater effluent on the site by the absorption bed, land application method. The proposed sewage treatment plant will have an average daily design flow capacity of 50,000 gallons per day. The anticipated peak flow of the treatment plant will be 60,000 gallons per day. The plant will generate and dispose of approximately 900 gallons of waste sludge on a daily basis. The facility would employ dual drain fields, use of which would be rotated on a weekly basis. The proposed average hydraulic loading rate would be 3.21 inches per day or two gallons per day, per square foot of drain field. The proposed facility will serve a 100-bed community hospital, assorted medical offices, a diagnostic laboratory and a 75-bed nursing home. The permit applicant has agreed and stipulated that chemical, nuclear and other hazardous and noxious waste materials, blood, body parts, medicines, and drugs will not be introduced into the sewage treatment system plant or drain fields. The Applicant (FMF) originally proposed to dispose of sewage effluent emanating from its hospital and other facilities by transmission of it through force-mains to existing public wastewater systems, one of which is in Charlotte County and the other in Sarasota County. After exploring these possibilities, these alternatives proved to be either too expensive or to involve transmission of effluent over too great a distance to make these options feasible. Sarasota County has a local pollution control program approved by the DER, pursuant to Section 403.182, Florida Statutes. Under this program the Sarasota Environmental Service Department reviews domestic wastewater treatment facility permit applications pending before the DER and makes recommendations on their disposition. The county's ordinance concerning such facilities is equivalent to the DER standards, except in some respects it is stricter Mr. Russell Klier of the county environmental services department established that the proposed project as planned and designed, will comply with county ordinances regarding wastewater treatment plants. Indeed, it was established through Mr. Klier's testimony, that the proposed project has more redundancy and reliability safeguards than any other such project presently operating in Sarasota County. The proposed sewage treatment plant and disposal system is designed to attain the secondary level of treatment required by Chapter 17-6.060, Florida Administrative Code. The effluent disposal system will provide for disposal of effluent in an absorption field system as envisioned by Chapter 17-6.040(4)(M), Florida Administrative Code and the Department's "Land Application Manual," incorporated by reference in that rule. The system, as proposed, will have the additional safeguards required by the "Land Application Manual" in order to attain "Class I reliability." The hospital, which is the initial facility to be constructed on the 60-acre site, is largely completed, and is being served by a temporary "package" sewage treatment plant until the permit application is resolved. The package sewage treatment plant, as well as the proposed plant and drain field land application system will only serve the medical center complex. All on-site stormwater and surface water run-off from both the 60-acre original medical center site, as well as the 5- acre proposed sewage treatment plant and disposal site, will be managed by directing stormwater and surface water run-off to holding ponds to be constructed and maintained on the original 60-acre site. Steven Houghton was accepted as an expert engineering witness. It was thus established that the system as designed will meet all water quality parameters regulated and enforced by the DER and Sarasota County in terms of the quality of the effluent generated by the plant and disposal system for disposal by land application. In this connection, he established that no nuclear, infectious, toxic or noxious waste will be processed by the system or introduced into the system nothing other than domestic-type sewage will be treated, processed and disposed of by the proposed system. Mr. Houghton acknowledged that the project will be located in an historically flood-prone vicinity, but that will not affect the quality or effectiveness of the operation of the plant nor the safe disposal of the resulting effluent. In that regard, the Applicant will place fill at the drain field site so as to provide a more effective soil percolation condition than that presently existing in the soils at the drain field site. Additionally, the Applicant will provide a sewage storage tank to provide extra reliability and avoidance of pollution caused by sewage overflows in the event of any excessive sewage flows into the plant, and as a safeguard against disposing of insufficiently treated effluent during periods of high rain and high surface or ground water conditions. Additionally, the system will be constructed and operated with sufficient redundancy of electrical and mechanical components so as to provide auxiliary capacity throughout the system, allowing it to operate efficiently 24 hours a day and to continue to provide treatment and disposal of the effluent in accordance with secondary treatment and Class I reliability standards, even during periods of mechanical or electrical outages. Petitioner Mary Wagoner owns and resides on acreage generally south and adjacent to the proposed project site. Mrs. Wagoner uses a potable water well in the shallow aquifer with a depth of approximately 35 feet. Mrs. Wagoner's well has recently been tested and at this time provides good, safe, potable water which she uses both for drinking, cooking, domestic usage, as well as water for her livestock. Mrs. Wagoner's well is less than 500 feet from the proposed "wetted area" of the drain field land application disposal site. Mr. Edward Snipes was accepted and testified as an expert witness in the areas of engineering and wastewater engineering on behalf of the Department. He corroborated Mr. Houghton's testimony in establishing that the project would meet the Department's standards for water quality and Class I reliability in large part. It was shown that the project will not likely have harmful effects on the Petitioners' water wells. Mr. Snipes established that the Department's "Land Application Manual" embodied in Rule 17-6.04(4)(Q), Florida Administrative Code requires a buffer zone of only 100 feet, instead of 500C feet, from the wetted area of the sewage effluent disposal site, due to the type of system and level of treatment proposed. That is, the system would provide secondary treatment, with additional safety measures incorporated in the design and operation so as to achieve Class I reliability. This Class I reliability standard includes a sufficiently high rate of disinfection so as to allow unrestricted public access to the site, and thus would meet the most stringent Class I reliability standards extant in Rule 17- 6.040(4)(M), Florida Administrative Code. This permits a reduced buffer zone between the wetted area of the drain field and any adjacent, shallow-water wells. Thus, the buffer zone would, in the case of this plant, be allowably reduced from 500 feet to 100 feet. In only one respect, was any doubt cast by Petitioner's testimony and evidence on the showing of reasonable assurances that all Department water quality and wastewater treatment standards will be met. That doubt concerns the distance from the bottom of the drain field to the water table elevation at the drain field site, as that relates to the ability of the system to continue to treat and dispose of effluent within appropriate standards in this admittedly flood-prone area, as that problem would in turn relate to potential contamination of ground water in the area, especially in times of high rainfall and high ground water levels. In that connection, Petitioner Wagoner offered Herman Weinberg as an expert witness in civil engineering and he was accepted. Mr. Weinberg acknowledged that he was not a soil engineer and acknowledged that the Department or its witnesses were more knowledgeable about wastewater regulation, treatment and disposal methods than he. He opined, however, that the plant may not be able to reach Class I reliability due to its location in a flood-prone area. He fears that insufficient soil testing and water quality testing had been done prior to the filing of the permit application. and prior to the ultimate construction of the project, if that is to be the case. Section 17-6.040(4) (M), Florida Administrative Code, adopts by reference the United States Environmental Protection Agency design criteria for mechanical, electrical and fluid system and component reliability manual. That manual sets forth certain minimum standards for Class I reliability sewage treatment and disposal plants and systems. In this regard, the rule in that manual establishes that wastewater treatment works include holding ponds and basins and other structures of the disposal system. It provides that all treatment works, structures, as well as electrical and mechanical equipment, shall be protected from physical damage by flooding of a magnitude occurring on the average of once in a hundred years, the so- called "100-year flood." In this connection, it was established through witness Weinberg's testimony as well as that of Mr. Houghton, the Applicant/Respondent's witness, that the 100-year flood plan elevation on and around the subject site is 12 feet above mean sea level. The top of the proposed drain field would be located at 12.33 feet elevation. The bottom of the drain field would be at 10.33 feet elevation. The water table level established by witness Houghton as a result of his survey and calculations, is at 8.33 feet elevation. The Department of Environmental Regulation, in its "Land Application Manual," which provides criteria for sewage plant and disposal system construction and operation, requires a 36-inch minimum separation between the bottom of a drain field and the design water table level. Thus, the legally operative Class I reliability standards, incorporated in the above-referenced rule and manuals, and which the Applicant and the Department agree is the level of reliability required, given the conditions and the proximity of Petitioner's well, can only be met if the drain field disposal system is at this required elevation of 36 inches above the design water table level. Affirmative, reasonable assurances that this safeguard will be incorporated in the subject system are necessary in view of the fact that Petitioner Wagoner's potable water well is clearly less than 500 feet from the wetted area of the drain field site. In this connection, the Applicant/Respondent has proposed placing fill soil of a suitable type for adequate percolation and land application treatment of the effluent on the drain field site, however, it has not been established that this will be done to such an extent as to raise the elevation of the drain field sufficiently so that the bottom of the drain field is a minimum of 36 inches above the design water table. The installation of an adequate depth of fill soil of a suitable percolation characteristic must therefore be a condition on the issuance of the permit. Further, in that regard, the Applicant/Respondent's soil test and calculation of tile ground water level or "design water table," occurred in January and February of 1985, at a time when the southwest region of Florida was in a drought or dry condition, such that the water level or ground water table at normal rainfall conditions would likely be at a higher elevation. Thus, a grant of this permit must be conditioned upon the installation of sufficient, appropriate quality fill soil to ensure that the minimum 36-inch separation between the drain field bottom and the water table is maintained during normal water table or rainfall conditions. If this measure is not taken, given the 2-foot separation between the drain field, as designed, and the water table, the oxygen transferring capacity of the soil beneath the drain field may not be sufficient to satisfy the oxygen demand required for consistently adequate treatment and safe disposal of the sewage effluent. Additionally, in this same context, Chapter 1 of the DER Land Application Manual at Section 1.3, requires that sufficient storage capacity exist on-site to ensure retention of sewage effluent during conditions which preclude land application, such as high ground water conditions or flooding conditions. This capacity should be equivalent to three days maximum daily flow at the design capacity of the plant, or in this case, 180,000 gallons. Although the Applicant, by its plans and specifications in evidence, has assured that a sewage effluent storage tank will be constructed and operated, it has failed to establish that sufficient storage capacity will be incorporated to assure the retention of 180,000 gallons of effluent. Any grant of the permit application should be conditioned upon such an assurance. Finally, in connection with the above-mentioned condition concerning installation of sufficient, appropriate soil filling to allow for a minimum 36-inch amount of unsaturated soil beneath the drain field, that addition of fill should also be of a sufficient type and amount to ensure that the Applicant's proposed rotation or "resting" of drain fields for 7-day periods will be adequate to ensure that the subject amount of soil is unsaturated before re-use of either of the two drain fields. There should be incorporated in these conditions, upon a grant of the permit, the requirement that the Department monitor construction of the proposed facility to ensure that the above conditions are adequately met, in view of the low-lying terrain at the drain field site and the flood-prone condition of that locality. Petitioner Mary Nygaard testified on behalf of herself and her husband, Lyle A. Nygaard. Mrs. Nygaard complains of feared pollution of her shallow-water potable well which she maintains is within 500 feet of the drain field and sewage plant site. Mr. Nygeard established that the well is 187.1 feet from the Petitioner's southern property boundary, but acknowledged that no survey has been done delineating the distance to the proposed wetted area of the drain field. It was not otherwise proven how far the Nygaard's potable well is from the wetted area of the proposed drain field where the effluent will be disposed of. Various easements and roadways lie between the Nygaard's well and the wetted area of the proposed drain field site with indeterminate dimensions, thus it was not proven what distance exists between the Nygaard's well and the drain field site other than that it exceeds 187.1 feet.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application of Florida Medical Facilities for a permit authorizing construction of an extended aeration, wastewater treatment plant and disposal system to serve only the Englewood Hospital and Medical Center project in Englewood, Sarasota County, Florida, referenced above be GRANTED, provided that the above-delineated conditions upon a grant of the permit are complied with. DONE and ENTERED this 30th of January, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Lyle and Mary E. Nygnard 740 Morningside Drive Englewood, Florida 33533 Harlan Domber, Esquire ISPHORDING, PAYNE, KORP and MUIRHEAD, P.A. 333 West Miami Avenue Venice, Florida 33595 James H. Burgess, Jr., Esquire SYPRETT, MESHAD, RESNICK and LIEF, P.A. Post Office Box 1238 Sarasota, Florida 33578 Douglas L. MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following specific rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to the extent that the proposals actually constitute proposed findings of fact as opposed to recitations of testimony and evidence, conclusions and arguments of law. APPLICANT/RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Additionally, paragraph 7 constitutes a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Additionally, paragraph 11 constitutes in part a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Accepted, but this proposed finding of fact is unnecessary and immaterial to a resolution of the material issues presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted as modified by the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order concerning the conditions which must be met before the permit should be granted as that relates to Class I reliability standards and the "buffer zone" issue. Accepted, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning the necessity of the installation of a minimum 36-inch adequate soil percolation zone and adequate sewage effluent storage capacity. Accepted in part, but rejected to the extent that this proposed finding of fact maintains that the nature of Mrs. Wagoner's well has been impossible to obtain due to her refusal to allow inspection. Indeed, Mrs. Wagoner adduced competent evidence of the water quality in her well. Accepted in part, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning the additional conditions that should be placed upon the permit related to its location in a flood-prone area, and related to the distance between the bottom of the drain field and the high water table. Accepted. Accepted, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning the conditions referenced above which must be met for Class I reliability and for avoidance of harmful effect on Petitioner's water well. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted.. Accepted, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning additional conditions referenced above which must be met concerning Class I reliability and protection of water quality in Petitioner's-well. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as constituting merely a discussion of testimony. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but this proposed finding is irrelevant to a resolution of the material issues presented. Accepted. Rejected as merely being a recitation of testimony. Accepted. PETITIONER WAGONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, except to the extent that it indicates the applicant will situate the facility in a manner so as not to be accessible to the general public. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as constituting a discussion and conclusion of law. 13 and 14. Rejected. These two proposed findings in reality constitute discussion and conclusions of law. 15 and 16. Rejected. These two proposed findings in reality constitute discussion and conclusions of law. They are rejected for the additional reason that portions of those two paragraphs that constitute proposed findings of fact do not comport with the competent, substantial, credible evidence and testimony presented. 17 through 31. These proposed findings are rejected as constituting conclusions of law and, to the extent that they embody proposed findings of fact, are not supported by the competent, substantial, credible evidence and testimony presented. The evidence and testimony shows that reasonable assurances (except as to the permit conditions recommended) have been provided that all pertinent regulatory criteria have been or will be met. The EPA Manual criteria referenced in these proposed findings of fact (17-31) are not mandatory, whereas those in Subsection (4)(q) of the above-referenced rule are mandatory and have been reasonably assured by the applicant to be met subject to the conditions recommended on a grant of the permit by the Hearing Officer. Accepted, except to the extent that the applicant is reputed not to have provided data to substantiate the estimated design water table. The applicant's proof of the water table elevation was un-refuted. Accepted as to the first sentence, the remaining portion of that proposed finding of fact is irrelevant and unnecessary to a disposition of the material issues presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Accepted to the extent that the conditions recommended to be attached to a grant of the permit envision assurance being provided before a grant of the permit that the issue raised by proposed finding No. 39 is satisfied. Accepted. Accepted as to its second sentence, the first sentence in that proposed finding is rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented, and as being unnecessary to a resolution of the material issues presented. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 47. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 48. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 49. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 50. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 51. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 52. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 53. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 54. Accepted. 55. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 56. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 57. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 58. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 59. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 60. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 61. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 62. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 63. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 64. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 65. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 66. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 67. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 68. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 69. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and for the additional reason that the last sentence is a proposed finding of fact not supported by competent, substantial credible evidence and testimony presented. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and for the further reason that the proposed finding of fact is not supported by competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected in part as constituting a conclusion of law and accepted to the extent that reasonable assurances concerning the effect of the water table elevation discussed in the Recommended Order have not been provided and such assurance should be a condition on a grant of the permit. The remainder of that proposed finding of fact is not supported by the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented and is irrelevant. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit authorizing installation of an OSDS on property which Petitioner owns near the Suwanee River in Dixie County, Florida, in accordance with Section 8l.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an owner, by joint tenancy, of real property located in Dixie County, Florida, more particularly described as part of Government Lot 1, Section 4, Township 11 South, Range 13 East; closely proximate to the Suwanee River at a location generally known as "New Pine Landing". The surrounding property is characterized by homes and mobile home,;, which have OSDS's installed and operating. The subject property has no improvements constructed thereon, although the Petitioner intends the placement of a 12X60 foot mobile home, containing two bedrooms and one bathroom. There is no OSDS of any type installed on the property at the present time. The subject property is approximately 18.5 acres in size. It was purchased on January 17, 1990, but the property in question has never been platted. On March 20, 1990, the Petitioner made application for an OSDS permit for the aforesaid property, which was denied by the Respondent's letter of denial dated April 23, 1990. The Petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to pursue an informal variance application through the variance procedure set up by the statute and rules cited hereinbelow. Rather, the Respondent, in its denial letter, indicated that, because of the perceived effect of the Governor's Executive Order, discussed hereinbelow, no variances were being granted and the variance procedure would be "bypassed" in favor of affording the Petitioner a formal administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings concerning the permit denial. The Petitioner testified generally concerning the character of the property in question and the general nature of the terrain and vegetation. The property is characterized by a wetland or swampy area at one end of the property and, in the area of the proposed installation site, the ground elevation is higher, with a benchmark elevation of 8.8 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"), as established by Herbert H. Raker, certified land surveyor, and depicted by Petitioner's Exhibit 2 in evidence. The Petitioner offered no testimony concerning the ground water levels, other than to say that at one point in time, he dug a three-foot-deep hole on the subject property near the septic tank installation site and observed no water in the hole. His testimony did not indicate at what season of the year the observation was made nor whether conditions were wet or dry at the time. The only concrete evidence concerning ground water level at this installation site was that offered by the Respondent, which indicates that the ground water level at the time of the site evaluation was 42 inches below the surface of the property in question at the proposed installation site and, through observation of "mottling1, of the soil, indicating the presence of dampness, that the wet season water table is 12 inches below the surface of the property. Likewise, the Petitioner professed to have no knowledge of the ten-year flood elevation for the property. The Respondent's evidence, derived from materials submitted by the Petitioner in furtherance of the application, consisting of a report from the Suwanee River Water Management District, establishes that the ten-year flood elevation is 14 feet above MSL for Suwanee River Mile 29, which corresponds to the location of the subject property. The property is also located within the regulatory floodway administered by the Suwanee River Water Management District. Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code, mandates that before a mounded system for on-site sewage disposal can be installed, a certification by a registered engineer would be necessary to determine that installation of such a mounded system would not raise the level of the "base flood". No such engineering testimony or evidence has been offered in this proceeding, however. The Petitioner further testified in a general sense that it would be a hardship not to be able to) install the OSDS on the property, given the money paid to purchase the property and the intent by the Petitioner to use it for a residence. The Petitioner has no use for the property without being able to use it for a residence. The Petitioner, however, did not offer any testimony or evidence concerning alternatives to installing the proposed OSDS, nor did the Petitioner establish that installation of such a system or an alternative system would pose no adverse health effects on the Petitioner or members of the general public nor that it would pose no degradation to the surface or ground waters involved for purposes of the Petitioner establishing entitlement to a permit or a variance It should be remembered, however, that the Petitioners were not accorded the opportunity to avail themselves of the variance procedure because of the Respondent's interpretation of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14, which it opines precludes it from granting any variances, or permits for OSDS within the ten-year flood elevation. This leads to its advising the Petitioner that to apply for a variance in this instance would be futile. The Governor's Executive Order, which incorporated the "Suwanee River Task Force" recommendation to preclude such system; beneath the ten-year flood elevation was entered on January 17 1990. The Respondent has, in effect, interpreted that Executive Order as precluding it from exercising its discretion to entertain and grant or deny variance applications.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit without prejudice to the Petitioner applying for and seeking a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting, for the reasons found and concluded above; and without prejudice to pursuing an OSDS permit application at a later time should the Petitioner become able to demonstrate that alternative methods of treatment and disposal of the sewage effluent in question can feasibly be performed within the bounds of the standards enunciated in the above-cited statutes and rules concerning on- site sewage disposal permitting. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3120 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-9. Accepted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: None filed. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Mary Ann White and Inman White P.O. Box 756 Old Town, Florida 32680 Frances Childers, Esquire Assistant District Legal Counsel HRS District 3 Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of Lot 22 at Hatch Bend Upon Suwannee, a subdivision platted and recorded in 1979. Lot 22 lies at river mile 59 of the Suwannee River, as determined by the Suwannee River Water Management District. The Petitioner purchased the property for a site to construct a residence for his retirement. He desires an OSDS to serve a small dwelling which he proposes to construct on the site of approximately 1,000 square feet. The lot is two acres in size. The subject lot is high, level and well drained. In depth, it extends approximately 600 feet from the shoreline of the Suwannee River, upon which it has approximately 150 feet of river frontage. The lot is not subject to frequent flooding, however, as established by a registered land surveyor, the grade elevation of the lot is approximately 19.7 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"), with a benchmark elevation of 20.20 feet at the highest point. The ten-year flood elevation for river mile 59 was established, through information derived from the records of the Suwannee River Water Management District, and in evidence, to be 24 feet above MSL. Thus, the surface of the property involved and the septic tank system installation site lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The property, in other particulars, appears to comply with the statute and rules governing requirements for the grant of OSDS permits. That is, the water table level was shown to be more than 72 inches below the surface of the property, which is more than adequate in terms of separation of the proposed drainfield trenches from the ground water table. The soil lying beneath the property is "fine sand", which is a limited soil of an appropriate type for the successful functioning of an OSDS. Based upon mottling found in the soil, the water table during wet seasons is estimated to be at 72 inches below the surface, again, a more than adequate separation between the water table during wet seasons and the bottom of the proposed drainfield trenches. Thus, the subject site is amenable to the installation of an OSDS, but for the fact of its elevation beneath the required ten-year flood elevation. In terms of establishing entitlement to a variance from the subject rule concerning the prohibition of installation of drainfield trenches which will be subject to flooding based upon the ten-year flood elevation, the Petitioner offered no real concrete evidence. The Petitioner merely testified that it was a hardship for him not to be able to construct his proposed retirement home on the property because of the inability to obtain an OSDS permit; however, he did not establish that there were no reasonable alternatives to the normal OSDS proposed and applied for, as for instance, a mounded system so that the drain fields could be installed above the ten-year flood elevation or some other alternative sewage disposal and treatment system. Thus, the Petitioner did not establish that no reasonable alternative exists but to install the normal OSDS, nor did the Petitioner establish that installation of such a system beneath the natural grade would pose no threat to the public's health or the health of the Petitioner. The Petitioner did not establish that such a system would not pose an adverse impact on surface and ground waters in and in the vicinity of the proposed installation site. Thus, no entitlement to a variance from the permitting requirements in the statute and rules cited below was established. The Respondent takes the position that the variance and the permit application should be denied because the proposed installation site lies below the ten-year flood elevation, and, as the Respondent interprets the Governor's Executive Order No. 90-14, issued on January 17, 1990, which adopted Suwannee River Task Force Report Recommendation NO. 36 by reference, the variance request and the permit application should be denied because that Executive Order and the Report Recommendation it incorporates, in essence, calls for the prohibition of any installation of such systems below the ten-year flood elevation based upon a presumption that such would adversely affect public health and the ground and surface waters. The Respondent takes the position that it cannot discretionarily grant variances in such a situation because of the Executive Order.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the application of Vernon Merritt for an OSDS permit and for a variance from the above-discussed permitting requirements, be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-3340 The Petitioner submitted no proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 4-5. Accepted, but not relevant and material. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Vernon Merritt P.O. Box 325 Inglis, FL 32649 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Assistant District 111 Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for a variance from agency rules governing daily domestic sewage flow so as to authorize an increase in the number of seats for his restaurant located in Howey in the Hills, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Fletcher C. Bishop, Jr., is the owner of a parcel of property located at Lot 22, Block C-2, Lakeshore Heights Subdivision, 102 South Palm Avenue, Howey in the Hills, Florida. The property consists of .0946 acre, or approximately one-tenth of an acre, and is one of several parcels located in Block C-2. Since January 1997, the property has been leased to Robert P. Jencic, who now operates a pizza restaurant on the premises known as Hungry Howies Pizza Shop. According to Jencic, he has a contract to purchase the property from Bishop at the end of his lease, or on March 1, 1998. Whether the property was actually purchased by Jencic on that date is not of record. Lakeshore Heights Subdivision is not served by a central wastewater treatment system; rather, each lot is served by a septic tank and drainfield system. Lot 22 adjoins several other commercial or business establishments situated on Lots 20, 21, 23, and 23A in the western half of Block C-2, and all share a common drainfield easement located to the rear of the lots. Except for Lot 20, all lots have tied into the drainfield and now use the easement for waste disposal purposes. Because they share a common easement, each lot has been allocated a portion of the easement for its respective septic tank and drainfield. In Petitioner's case, he has been allocated approximately 990 square feet. After Jencic signed a commitment in January 1997 to lease and purchase the property, he made extensive renovations in order to convert the property to a restaurant. On or about February 20, 1997, Jencic met with a representative of the Lake County Health Department, an agency under the direction and control of Respondent, Department of Health (Department). At that time, Jencic filed an application for a site evaluation concerning the replacement of the existing onsite sewage disposal system. The application noted that he intended to operate a pizza restaurant with 56 proposed seats. On February 21, 1997, a site evaluation was conducted by Robin Gutting, a Lake County Department of Health environmental supervisor. According to her report [t]he property size of 4120 square feet with available central water will allow a maximum 236 gallons of sewage flow per day . . . This will allow a 12 seat restaurant using single service articles and operating less than 16 hours per day. . . The size of the Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System would be a minimum 900 gallon tank with 197 square feet of drainfield trench configuration. (emphasis added) Jancic received a copy of the report on or about March 12, 1997, and it clearly conveyed to him the fact that he could operate no more than 12 seats in his restaurant due to sewage flow limitations on his property. Despite being on notice that the restaurant would be limited to only 12 seats due to the lot flow restrictions, on March 19, 1997, Jencic filed an application with the Lake County Health Department for a construction permit to replace the existing septic tank with a 900 gallon septic tank, install a 900 gallon grease trap, and utilize a 197 square-foot primary drainfield and a 200 square-foot bed system. The application indicated that Jencic intended to operate a restaurant "for 12 seats, single service, open less than 16 hours per day." On May 28, 1997, Jencic's application was approved for "12 seats, single service, open less than 16 hours per day." After installing the new tank and grease trap, Jencic began restaurant operations subject to the above restrictions. After operating his pizza restaurant for a short period of time, Jencic determined that he could generate a profit only if the restaurant could be expanded to allow more seats, and he could use china and silverware (full service articles) rather than single service articles (throwaway utensils). To do this, however, he would need a larger sewage treatment system. By letter dated November 9, 1997, Jencic requested a variance from various Department standards for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems so as to "increase the seating from 12 seats to a maximum of 36 seats and [authorize] the use of china, silverware, and dishes." Although the letter does not refer to any rules, the Department has treated the letter as seeking a variance from three of its rules found in Part I, Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code. First, Rule 64E-6.001(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, provides that an establishment cannot exceed the lot flow allowances authorized under Rule 64E-6.005(7)(c), Florida Administrative Code. If the seating capacity in the restaurant were increased, Jencic would exceed the lot flow allowances in violation of this rule. Second, Rule 64E-6.005(7)(b), Florida Administrative Code, prescribes the manner in which a determination of lot densities shall be made. Among other things, daily sewage flow cannot exceed an average of 2,500 gallons per day per acre. The easement which Petitioner shares with other lots is far less than an acre, even counting the space allocated to the adjoining lots. Finally, Rule 64E-6.008(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that minimum design flows for systems serving a structure shall be based on the estimated daily sewage flow as determined by Table I of the rule. That table specifies an estimated daily sewage flow of 20 gallons per seat for restaurants using single service articles only and operating less than 16 hours per day. Therefore, a 12-seat restaurant with those operating characteristics would require a system that could handle at least 240 gallons of sewage flow per day. The table further provides that a restaurant operating 16 hours or less per day with full service will generate an estimated sewage flow of 40 gallons per seat. Thus, a restaurant with up to 36 seats, as Jencic has requested, would require a system handling at least 1,440 gallons of sewage flow per day. In order to qualify for a variance, an applicant must show that (a) the hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant; (b) no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage; and (c) the discharge from the onsite sewage treatment and disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. In its letter denying the variance, the Department asserts that Jancic has failed to show that items (a) and (c) have been satisfied. Jencic, who recently immigrated to this country, will suffer considerable financial hardship if the request for a variance is denied. Indeed, he demonstrated at hearing that his life savings have been invested in the restaurant, and his parents have placed a substantial mortgage on their property to assist him in his endeavor. If he does not purchase the property as required by his contract, he will be forced to restore the property to its original condition at great expense. In short, given his investment in renovations and equipment, unless the restaurant is expanded, he fears he must file for bankruptcy. Both parties agree that Jancic will suffer a hardship if the variance is not approved. However, Jancic was aware of the lot flow limitations before he made application to replace the existing septic tank in March 1997, and well before he began operating the restaurant in May 1997. Unfortunately, then, it must be found that the hardship was intentionally created by Jencic's own actions. If the variance were approved, it would result in a much larger amount of sewage being discharged into the easement, which could not handle that amount of flow. This in turn could cause the system to fail, thus creating a sanitary nuisance and the leaching of sewage into the groundwater. In this respect, Jancic has failed to show that the discharge will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. Jencic offered into evidence a summary of his water usage during a representative period in 1997. That document indicated that metered water usage was approximately 3,000 to 4,000 gallons per month, even when he temporarily (and without authority) expanded his restaurant to 24 seats during a recent two-month period to test water consumption at the higher seating capacity. However, because the sewage strength of a restaurant is far greater than that of a residence, a sewage system must be sized on estimated waste flow, and not metered water flow rates. Therefore, the fact that Jancic's monthly metered water usage is less than 4,000 gallons is not relevant to a determination of the issues. The same finding must be made with respect to Jancic's well-intentioned efforts to decrease water flow by installing high pressure toilets and timed spring systems on his hand sinks. Jencic also requested that he be allowed "spike time" during the hours of 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., which are his peak hours of the day. In other words, the undersigned assumes that he is asking that consideration be given to the fact that he has virtually no business during the other hours of the working day, and that the flow during the peak hours alone would not be excessive on a daily basis. However, the Department's rules are calculated to maximum usage, and thus a "spike" allowance is not allowed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for a variance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert P. Jencic 102 South Palm Avenue Howey in the Hills, Florida 34737 Marya Reynolds Latson, Esquire Post Office Box 2408 Ocala, Florida 34478 James Hardin Peterson, III, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent Laniger Enterprises of America, Inc. (Laniger), is liable to Petitioner Department of Environmental Protection (Department) for penalties and costs for the violations alleged in the Department's Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (NOV).
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the State of Florida having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. Laniger is a Florida corporation that owns and operates the WWTP that is the subject of this case, located at 1662 Northeast Dixie Highway, Jensen Beach, Martin County, Florida. The WWTP is referred to in the Department permit documents as the Beacon 21 WWTP. The WWTP Laniger acquired the WWTP in 1988 in a foreclosure action. At that time, the WWTP was in a "dilapidated" condition and was operating under a consent order with the Department. After acquiring the WWTP, Laniger brought it into compliance with the Department's requirements. Laniger's WWTP is commonly referred to as a "package plant."3 The WWTP's treatment processes are extended aeration, chlorination, and effluent disposal to percolation ponds. The WWTP does not have a direct discharge to surface water. It was permitted to treat 99,000 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. Its average daily flow during the past year was about 56,000 gallons. The east side of the WWTP site is adjacent to Warner Creek. On the north side of the WWTP site, an earthen berm separates the WWTP's percolation ponds from a drainage ditch that connects to Warner Creek. Warner Creek is a tributary to the St. Lucie River. The St. Lucie River is part of the Indian River Lagoon System. The Indian River Lagoon Act In 1989, the St. Johns River Water Management District and the South Florida Water Management District jointly produced a Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan for the Indian River Lagoon System ("the lagoon system"). For the purpose of the planning effort, the lagoon system was defined as composed of Mosquito Lagoon, Indian River Lagoon, and Banana River Lagoon. It extends from Ponce de Leon Inlet in Volusia County to Jupiter Inlet in Palm Beach County, a distance of 155 miles. The SWIM Plan identified high levels of nutrients as a major problem affecting the water quality of the lagoon system. Domestic wastewater was identified as the major source of the nutrients. The SWIM Plan designated 12 problem areas within the lagoon system and targeted these areas for "research, restoration and conservation projects under the SWIM programs." Department Exhibit 2 at 11-13. Neither Warner Creek nor the St. Lucie River area near Laniger's WWTP is within any of the 12 problem areas identified in the SWIM Plan. With regard to package plants, the SWIM Plan stated: There are numerous, privately operated, "package" domestic WWTPs which discharge indirectly or directly to the lagoon. These facilities are a continual threat to water quality because of intermittent treatment process failure, seepage to the lagoon from effluent containment areas, or overflow to the lagoon during storm events. Additionally, because of the large number of "package" plants and the lack of enforcement staff, these facilities are not inspected or monitored as regularly as they should be. Where possible, such plants should be phased out and replaced with centralized sewage collection and treatment facilities. Department Exhibit 2, at 64. In 1990, the Legislature passed the Indian River Lagoon Act, Chapter 90-262, Laws of Florida. Section 1 of the Act defined the Indian River Lagoon System as including the same water bodies as described in the SWIM Plan, and their tributaries. Section 4 of the Act provided: Before July 1, 1991, the Department of Environmental Regulation shall identify areas served by package sewage treatment plants which are considered a threat to the water quality of the Indian River Lagoon System. In response to this legislative directive, the Department issued a report in July 1991, entitled "Indian River Lagoon System: Water Quality Threats from Package Wastewater Treatment Plants." The 1991 report found 322 package plants operating within the lagoon system and identified 155 plants as threats to water quality. The 1991 report described the criteria the Department used to determine which package plants were threats: Facilities that have direct discharges to the system were considered threats. Facilities with percolation ponds, absorption fields, or other sub-surface disposal; systems located within 100 feet of the shoreline or within 100 feet of any canal or drainage ditch that discharges or may discharge to the lagoon system during wet periods were considered threats. * * * Facilities with percolation ponds, absorption fields, or other sub-surface disposal systems located more than 100 feet from surface water bodies in the system were evaluated case-by-case based on [operating history, inspection reports, level of treatment, and facility reliability]. Laniger's package plant was listed in the 1991 report as a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system because it was within 100 feet of Warner Creek and the drainage ditch that connects to Warner Creek. The Department notified Laniger that its WWTP was listed as a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system soon after the 1991 report was issued. The Department's 1991 report concluded that the solution for package plants threats was to replace them with centralized sewage collection and treatment facilities. To date, over 90 of the package plants identified in the Department's 1991 report as threats to the water quality of the lagoon system have been connected to centralized sewage collection and treatment systems. The 1999 Permit and Administrative Order On August 26, 1999, the Department issued Domestic Wastewater Facility Permit No. FLA013879 to Laniger for the operation of its WWTP. Attached to and incorporated into Laniger's 1999 permit was Administrative Order No. AO 99-008- DW43SED. The administrative order indicates it was issued pursuant to Section 403.088(2)(f), Florida Statutes. That statute pertains to discharges that "will not meet permit conditions or applicable statutes and rules" and requires that the permit for such a discharge be accompanied by an order establishing a schedule for achieving compliance. The administrative order contains a finding that the Beacon 21 WWTP is a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system and that the WWTP "has not provided reasonable assurance . . . that operation of the facility will not cause pollution in contravention of chapter 403, F.S., and Chapter [sic] 62-610.850 of the Florida Administrative Code." The cited rule provides that "land application projects shall not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards in surface waters." Most of the parties' evidence and argument was directed to the following requirements of the administrative order: Beacon 21 WWTP shall connect to the centralized wastewater collection and treatment within 150 days of its availability and properly abandoned facility [sic] or provide reasonable assurance in accordance with Chapter 62-620.320(1) of the Florida Administrative Code that continued operation of the wastewater facility is not a threat to the water quality of the Indian River Lagoon System and will not cause pollution in contravention of chapter 403, F.S. and Chapter 62-610.850 of the Florida Administrative Code. * * * (3) Beacon 21 WWTP shall provide this office with semi annual reports outlining progress toward compliance with the time frames specified in paragraph 1 of this section, beginning on the issuance date of permit number FLA013879-002-DW3P. The administrative order contained a "Notice of Rights" which informed Laniger of the procedures that had to be followed to challenge the administrative order. Laniger did not challenge the administrative order. As a result of an unrelated enforcement action taken by the Department against Martin County, and in lieu of a monetary penalty, Martin County agreed to extend a force main from its centralized sewage collection and treatment facility so that the Laniger WWTP could be connected. The extension of the force main was completed in April 2003. The force main was not extended to the boundary of the Laniger WWTP site. The force main terminates approximately 150 feet north of the Laniger WWTP site and is separated from the WWTP site by a railroad. Correspondence Regarding Compliance Issues On August 21, 2001, following an inspection of the Laniger WWTP, the Department sent Laniger a letter that identified some deficiencies, one of which was Laniger's failure to submit the semi-annual progress reports required by the administrative order. Reginald Burge, president of Laniger and owner of the WWTP, responded by letter to William Thiel of the Department, stating that, "All reports were sent to the West Palm Beach office. Copies are attached." Mr. Thiel testified that the progress reports were not attached to Laniger's letter and he informed Laniger that the reports were not attached. Mr. Burge testified that he subsequently hand-delivered the reports. At the hearing, it was disclosed that Laniger believed its semi-annual groundwater monitoring reports satisfied the requirement for progress reports and it was the monitoring reports that Mr. Burge was referring to in his correspondence and which he hand-delivered to the Department. Laniger's position in this regard, however, was not made clear in its correspondence to the Department and the Department apparently never understood Laniger's position until after issuance of the NOV. On April 10, 2003, the Department notified Laniger by letter that a centralized wastewater collection and treatment system "is now available for the connection of Beacon 21." In the notification letter, the Department reminded Laniger of the requirement of the administrative order to connect within 150 days of availability. On May 9, 2003, the Department received a response from Laniger's attorney, stating that the administrative order allowed Laniger, as an alternative to connecting to the centralized wastewater collection and treatment system, to provide reasonable assurance that the WWTP was not a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system, and Laniger had provided such reasonable assurance. It was also stated in the letter from Laniger's attorney that "due to the location of Martin County's wastewater facilities, such facilities are not available as that term is defined in the [administrative] Order."4 On May 29, 2003, the Department replied, pointing out that the administrative order had found that reasonable assurance was not provided at the time of the issuance of the permit in 1999, and Laniger had made no "improvements or upgrades to the facility." The Department also reiterated that the progress reports had not been submitted. On September 29, 2003, the Department issued a formal Warning Letter to Laniger for failure to connect to the Martin County force main and for not providing reasonable assurance that the WWTP will not cause pollution in contravention of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The progress reports were not mentioned in the Warning Letter. The Department took no further formal action until it issued the NOV in August 2005. Count I: Failure to Timely File for Permit Renewal and Operating Without a Permit Count I of the NOV alleges that Laniger failed to submit its permit renewal application at least 180 days prior to the expiration of the 1999 permit, failed to obtain renewal of its permit, and is operating the WWTP without a valid permit. The date that was 180 days before the expiration of the 1999 permit was on or about February 27, 2004. Laniger did not submit its permit renewal application until February 15, 2005. In an "enforcement meeting" between Laniger and the Department following the issuance of the warning letter in September 2003, the Department told Laniger that it would not renew Laniger's WWTP permit. It was not established in the record whether this enforcement meeting took place before or after February 27, 2004. When Laniger filed its permit renewal application in February 2005, the Department offered to send the application back so Laniger would not "waste" the filing fee, because the Department knew it was not going to approve the application. Laniger requested that the Department to act on the permit application, and the Department denied the application on April 6, 2005. The Department's Notice of Permit Denial stated that the permit was denied because Laniger had not connected to the available centralized wastewater collection and treatment system nor provided reasonable assurance that the WWTP "is not impacting water quality within the Indian River Lagoon System." Laniger filed a petition challenging the permit denial and that petition is the subject of DOAH Case 05-1599, which was consolidated for hearing with this enforcement case. Laniger's permit expired on August 25, 2004. Laniger has operated the plant continuously since the permit expired. Count II: Failure to Submit Progress Reports Count II of the NOV alleges that Laniger failed to comply with the requirement of the administrative order to provide the Department with semi-annual reports of Laniger's progress toward connecting to a centralized sewage collection and treatment facility or providing reasonable assurances that continued operation of the WWTP would not be a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system. Laniger maintains that its groundwater monitoring reports satisfied the requirement for the semi-annual progress reports because they showed that the WWTP was meeting applicable water quality standards. The requirement for groundwater monitoring reports was set forth in a separate section of Laniger's permit from the requirement to provide the semi-annual progress reports. The monitoring reports were for the purpose of demonstrating whether the WWTP was violating drinking water quality standards in the groundwater beneath the WWTP site. They served a different purpose than the progress reports, which were to describe steps taken by Laniger to connect to a centralized sewage collection and treatment facility. Laniger's submittal of the groundwater monitoring reports did not satisfy the requirement for submitting semi-annual progress reports. There was testimony presented by the Department to suggest that it believed the semi-annual progress reports were also applicable to Laniger's demonstration of reasonable assurances that the WWTP was not a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system. However, the progress reports were for the express purpose of "outlining progress toward compliance with the time frames specified in paragraph 1." (emphasis added) The only time frame mentioned in paragraph 1 of the administrative order is connection to an available centralized wastewater collection and treatment facility "within 150 days of its availability." There is no reasonable construction of the wording of this condition that would require Laniger to submit semi-annual progress reports related to reasonable assurances that the WWTP is not a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system. Count III: Department Costs In Count III of the NOV, the Department demands $1,000.00 for its reasonable costs incurred in this case. Laniger did not dispute the Department's costs.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to the grant of a variance for the installation of an onsite sewage disposal system ("OSDS") for his property on the Santa Fe River in Gilchrist County, Florida, in accordance with Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of certain real property located in Gilchrist County, Florida, more particularly described as Lot 4, Unit 4, Ira Bea's Oasis, a subdivision. The evidence is not clear concerning whether the plat of the subdivision was actually recorded, although the evidence and the Petitioner's testimony indicates that the lots in the subject subdivision were subdivided in 1965. The evidence does not clearly reflect whether the subdivision was ever platted, however. On April 2, 1990, the Petitioner filed an application for an OSDS permit regarding the subject property. The application was for a new OSDS on the above-described property; and the system was intended to serve a single- family residence, which the Petitioner desires to construct on the subject property for a vacation and retirement home. The proposed residence would contain three bedrooms and a heated or cooled area of approximately 1,100 square feet. In the permit application process, at the Respondent's behest, the Petitioner had a survey performed by Herbert G. Parrish, registered land surveyor. That survey, in evidence as the Respondent's Exhibit 1, reveals a benchmark elevation of 21.65 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The proposed installation site is at an elevation of 22.5 feet above MSL. A report by the Suwannee River Water Management District, which is admitted into evidence and was submitted to the Respondent by the Petitioner with the application for the OSDS permit, shows a ten-year flood elevation for the subject property, and River Mile 10 of the Santa Fe River, at 31 feet above MSL. Thus, the subject property is located beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The property is also located within the regulatory floodway of the Santa Fe River, as that relates to required engineering certification and calculations being furnished which will assure that if OSDS's are constructed employing mounding or sand filters, and like constructions, that such related fill deposited on the property within the regulatory floodway will not raise the level of the "base flood" for purposes of the rules cited hereinbelow. No evidence of such certification by an appropriately-registered engineer was offered in this proceeding concerning the installation of a mounded system and its effect on the base flood level. The surface grade level of the subject property at the installation site is 9.5 feet below the ten-year flood elevation. The grade elevation of the subject property is also .5 feet below the "two-year flood elevation", and the property has been flooded once in the past three years and has been flooded approximately four times in the past 15 years. It has thus not been established in this proceeding that the property is not subject to frequent flooding. On April 18, 1990, the Respondent denied the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit by letter of that date. The Petitioner did not make a timely request for a formal administrative hearing to dispute that denial. The Petitioner maintained at hearing that this was, in essence, because the Respondent's personnel informed him that he should seek a variance instead, which is what he did. The testimony of Mr. Fross reveals, however, that, indeed, he was advised of his opportunity to seek a variance but was also advised of his right to seek a formal administrative hearing to contest the denial of the permit itself. Nevertheless, either through the Petitioner's misunderstanding of his rights or because he simply elected to choose the variance remedy instead, the fact remains that he did not timely file a petition for formal proceeding to contest the denial of the OSDS permit itself. Even had a timely petition for formal proceeding concerning the denial of the OSDS permit application been filed, the evidence of record does not establish the Petitioner's entitlement to such a permit. As found above, the property lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation and, indeed, lies below the two-year flood elevation, which subjects the property to a statistical 50% chance of being flooded each year. This and the other findings referenced above indicate that the property has not been established to be free from frequent flooding; and although appropriate "slight-limited" soils are present at the proposed installation site, those soils only extend 50 inches below the surface grade. That leaves an insufficient space beneath the bottom of the drainfield trenches where they would be located so as to have a sufficient volume and distance of appropriate treatment soil available beneath the drain field, if one should be installed. Below 50 inches at the subject site is a limerock strata which is impervious and constitutes a barrier to appropriate percolation and treatment of effluent waste water. Thus, for these reasons, especially the fact that the property clearly lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation and because adequate proof in support of a mounded system which might raise a septic tank and drainfield system above the ten-year flood elevation has not been adduced, entitlement to the OSDS permit itself has not been established. Concerning the variance application actually at issue in this proceeding, the Petitioner has proposed, in essence, two alternative systems. The Petitioner has designed, and submitted as an exhibit, a plan for a holding- tank-type- system. By this, the Petitioner proposes a 250-gallon holding tank, with a venting pipe extending approximately three feet above the level of the ten-year flood elevation, with an attendant concrete retaining wall and concrete base to which the tank would be securely attached. The Petitioner thus postulates that flood waters would not move or otherwise disturb the holding tank and that he would insure that the holding tank was pumped out at appropriate intervals and the waste there from properly deposited at a treatment facility located above the ten-year flood elevation. The precise method of such disposal and its location was not disclosed in the Petitioner's evidence, however. Moreover, the testimony of Dr. Hunter establishes that the deposition of waste water and human waste into the tank, either through pumping, or by gravity line, if the residence were located at an elevation above the inlet to the tank, might well result in a hydraulic condition which would cause the untreated sewage to overflow from the vent pipe of the tank. Moreover, such systems do not insure that public health, the health of the occupants of the site, and ground or surface waters will not be degraded since it is very costly to pump such a tank out which would have to be done on a frequent basis. This leaves the possibility that the user of such a holding-tank-facility could surreptitiously drain the tank into nearby receiving waters or otherwise improperly empty the tank. Even though the Petitioner may be entirely honorable in his intentions and efforts in this regard and not violate the law and the rules of the above-cited chapter in his manner of disposal of the holding-tank effluent, there is no practical, enforceable safeguard against such illegal activity, especially if one considers that the property may later be conveyed to a different landowner and user of the system. The Petitioner also proposes in his testimony and evidence the possibility of using a nondischarging, composting-toilet-type system to handle sewage involving human excreta. Such a system has been shown by the Petitioner's evidence to adequately treat human sewage so that public health and the ground and surface waters involved in and near the site could be adequately safeguarded. The problem with such a system, however, is that the "gray water", that is, waste water from bathtubs, showers, lavatories and kitchens, cannot be disposed of in the composting-toilet system. Such gray water, which also contains viruses, coliform bacteria and nutrients, must be disposed of, according to the rules at issue, in an appropriate sewage disposal system, be it in a septic tank and drain field or through pumping to an appropriate disposal and treatment facility located above the ten-year flood elevation. The Petitioner's proof does not establish how such gray water could be appropriately and safely disposed of in the environmental and public health context at issue herein. Thus, the proposed alternatives suggested by the Petitioner's proof do not constitute minor deviations from the minimum requirements for OSDS's specified in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. Ironically, the composting-toilet system, coupled with a proper disposal system for household gray water, could constitute a reasonable alternative to a conventional system. Thus, the Petitioner's proof, itself, shows that a reasonable alternative may exist, which militates against the granting of the variance, although he did not prove how it could feasibly be accomplished. In summary, therefore, the Petitioner's proof failed to establish that no reasonable alternative exists and that the proposed system would only be a minor deviation from the minimum requirements of the Respondent's rules concerning OSDS's and their installation and operation. The Petitioner established that a reasonable alternative to a conventional OSDS might exist for purposes of granting an OSDS permit itself, had that issue been formally placed before the Hearing Officer, but did not prove how it could feasibly be accomplished and operated. This proof shows, however, that such a reasonable alternative might be found operable which, thus, fails to justify the granting of a variance based upon hardship. If the Petitioner could come forward with proof to establish the feasibility of disposal and treatment of the household gray water involved in an appropriate treatment and disposal site and facility above the ten-year flood elevation, in conjunction with use of a composting- toilet system, a later permit application might be entertained in which could be justified the granting of an OSDS permit.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Respondent denying the Petitioner's application for a variance from the statutory and regulatory requirements, cited above, for the issuance of permits. At such time as the Petitioner is able to show changed factual circumstances, as for instance, that a reasonable, feasible alternative system, which will adequately treat and dispose of all household waste water effluent in a manner comporting with the rules of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, a permit application should be entertained. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-4569 The Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted. 17. Rejected, as not supported by the preponderant evidence of record. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Mark Moneyhan, pro se Route 3, Box 407 Perry, FL 32347 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS District III Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
Findings Of Fact On October 13, 1988, Petitioner applied for a permit from Respondent for the operation of an onsite sewage disposal system in connection with a commercial project to be constructed on Petitioner's property in Polk County, Florida. Petitioner's application was disapproved that same day. Respondent denied the application because a publicly owned sewer system was available to Petitioner. A sewage line of the City of Lakeland, Florida, exists within a public easement abutting Petitioner's property. That sewage line is about 10 feet from Petitioner's property line. Gravity flow from Petitioner's proposed facility to the sewer line can be maintained. The city's system is under no moratoriums from any governmental body which would prevent the addition of Petitioner to the system. On October 17, 1988, Petitioner applied to Respondent's variance board, in accordance with provisions of Section 381.272(8), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-6.045, Florida Administrative Code. The variance application was considered by the board on November 3, 1988, and a recommendation that the variance be denied resulted. On December 12, 1988, Respondent notified Petitioner of the recommended denial of the variance application. The denial letter to Petitioner informed him that variances were granted for the relief or prevention of excessive hardship in those situations where there is a clear showing that the public health would not be impaired and pollution of groundwater or surface water would not result. The letter further stated that recommendation to deny variance was premised on the availability of public sewer to the property. Existence of adequate drainage for the proposed on site disposal system on Petitioner's property is questionable. The water table during the wettest season of the year on the property is only 20 inches from the surface. During other parts of the year, the water table is 38 inches from the ground surface. Two residences are presently situated on Petitioner's property and produce a flow to the present septic tank sewage disposal system of approximately 900 gallons per day. A commercial building also previously existed on the property and supplied a septic tank flow of approximately 700 gallons. The proof at hearing failed to establish whether the commercial building flow coexisted with the present residential flow. Petitioner proposes to construct a "mini mall" consisting of four stores, each with one toilet, on the property. Since public usage of the toilets in the building is not anticipated to be frequent, Petitioner estimates that approximately 600 gallons of sewage flow will be generated on a daily basis. Petitioner's property is presently served by the public water utility of the City of Lakeland. While the property lies outside the corporate city limits, it is bounded on two sides by property within the city limits on which restaurants, served by the city's sewage system, are situated. The city easement containing the sewer line runs along another side of the property which is contiguous to U.S. Highway 98. Under current policy of the City of Lakeland, connection to the city sewage system is permitted only to property located in the city limits. Petitioner must agree to annexation by the city of his property in order to obtain connection to the sewage system. However, the city assesses impact fees in addition to costs of sewage connection and in Petitioner's situation the amount of impact fees anticipated to be levied by the city is approximately $53,000. Petitioner estimates the value of his property when the "mini mall" is completed at $700,000. Estimated cost of construction, without consideration of the city's impact fees, will be $350,000. While Petitioner does not contemplate selling the property after the development is completed, he will be leasing the individual store facilities. The sole objection of Petitioner to denial of his request for a variance recommendation is that he will be forced to resort to joining the city's public sewage system and, by concomitantly accepting the city's annexation of his property, incurring the city's impact fees. It is Petitioner's contention that the impact fees effectively make the city's system unavailable to him. Alternatively, Petitioner also contends that assessment of impact fees by the city will pose a financial hardship on him and increase the per unit rental or lease costs he must charge tenants. Petitioner also contends that his commercial project will cause no adverse public health considerations because sewage flow from his facility to an on site sewage disposal system will be no more and possibly less than that presently flowing from the residences on the property to the existing septic tank system. This testimony is not credited due to the fact that anticipated drainage flow is an estimate by Petitioner with no demonstrated expertise in making such estimates; drainage at the proposed site location is questionable; and Petitioner's application states that the proposed site is located five feet from a public water well. Petitioner asserts that facts of a previous decision of the variance board established policy which requires that the variance he has requested be granted. On May 19, 1988, the variance board recommended a variance be granted to an automobile dealership in Polk County to operate an on site sewage disposal system. Had the variance not been granted, the dealership would have been force to accept annexation to a city adjoining the dealership property in order to have sewage disposal. Such a decision would have resulted in two dealerships from the same company within that city. The applicant in that case would have lost his automobile dealer franchise or have been forced to relocate elsewhere. The automobile dealership property site possessed adequate drainage with a water table 44 inches below the surface during the wettest season of the year and 84 inches at other times of the year. Anticipated sewage flow estimated at 525 gallons per day for the automobile dealership is similar to the estimate of 600 gallons per day for Petitioner's facility. Impact fees were not a consideration in the case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying approval of the variance requested by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Deno P. Dikeou Liberty National Bank Building Suite 200 502 N. Highway 17-92 Longwood, Florida 32750 Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Buffalo Avenue 5th Floor, Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esq. General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The applicant, Island Village Condominiums, prepared and submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation a completed application for construction of its extended aeration sewage treatment plant. The relative distance and direction from the proposed treatment plant to major bodies of surrounding surface water are depicted in an aerial photograph which accompanied the application. The elevation of the surrounding waters in all directions is 39 feet. When the treatment plant is operated in compliance with its design features, the effluent from the plant will exceed the Department's standards for effluent discharge. The zone of discharge will be confined to the owners' property. Surface waters will not be involved in discharge. There will be no adverse impact upon ground waters. The treatment plant would not create a hazzard to the deep water wells of Point O' Woods Utilities, Inc. The treatment plant, as designed, meets or exceeds the engineering standards established by the Department. The likelihood of geologic subsurface failure is remote. Ground water levels are included on the schematic plan which accompanied the application to the Department. The tops of the holding ponds are above the 100-year flood level. The treatment plant will produce no noticeable odor. No exterior lights are to be used with the plant. The noise from the plant's operation would not travel more than 200 feet. The holding ponds would be more than 120 feet from the nearest surface water. The estimate of the cost is accurate at $98,000. Martin I. Gunn, Inc., is the developer of the property, which is also owned by the corporation, Island Village Condominiums, also known as Island Village of Inverness. The treatment plant will become the property of the home owners association and will be operated by the association from maintenance fees paid by the home owners. Martin I. Gunn/Island Village is not a public utility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the permit for the construction and operation of an extended aeration sewage treatment plant be issued to Island Village Condominiums subject to the general and specific conditions stated in the Department's original notice. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas V. Infantino, Esquire Post Office Drawer. B Winter Park, Florida 32790 Donald F. Perrin, Esquire New Bank of Inverness Building Highway 41, South Post Office Box 1533 Inverness, Florida 32650 William W. Deane, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria J. Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Should Petitioner's application for variance from the standards for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems be granted?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department, through its local health units, is the agency in the State of Florida responsible for permitting or granting variances from permitting standards set forth in Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code, for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (OSTDS). Sometime around 1970, Petitioner purchased a mobile home park (Park) in Winter Haven, Florida. The Park presently contains 68 spaces for mobile homes, all of which are occupied. The Park is situated due south of Lake Shipp. There are two canals running approximately east and west through the interior of the Park. Another canal borders the Park on the north side. Included with the purchase of the Park was a Sewage Treatment System (STS) which is permitted and regulated by the Department of Environmental Protection and is presently operating at its maximum capacity serving the 68 mobile homes located in the Park. Sometime around 1980, Petitioner purchased a parcel of land (Property) immediately north of, and across a canal (this is the canal that borders the north side of the Park) from, the Park. The Property borders a basin to Lake Shipp. The Property is zoned for mobile home usage and such is the purpose for which Petitioner purchased the Property. Petitioner has designed the Property such that it will accommodate three mobile home lots (Lots numbered 69, 70, and 71) which Petitioner intends to operate as part of the Park. Initially, Petitioner requested approval of the Department of Environmental Protection to connect the new lots to the existing STS. However, since the existing STS was already at capacity, the Department of Environmental Protection denied Petitioner's request to connect the additional three lots to that system. However, the Department of Environmental protection advised Petitioner that it would have no objection to the installation of septic tanks approved by the Department of Health to serve the additional lots. Subsequently, Petitioner proceeded to obtain the necessary approvals from the local governing authorities and a permit from the Department for the installation of septic tanks on the Property. Petitioner was successful in obtaining the necessary approvals from the local governing authorities but was not successful in obtaining a permit for the installation of septic tanks on the Property from the Department. By letter dated July 16, 1997, the Polk County Health Department denied Petitioner's Application for Onsite Sewage Treatment Disposal System Permit for the following reason: "Domestic sewage flow exceeds 10,000 gallons per day." The denial letter also advised Petitioner that she could request a variance through the Variance Review Board or request an administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, on the Department's denial of her application for a permit to install septic tanks on the Property. Petitioner elected to file an application for a variance from Section 381.0065(3)(b), Florida Statutes, with the Variance Review Board. By letter dated August 7, 1997, the Department denied Petitioner's application for variance for the following reasons: The Variance Review and Advisory Committee for the Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Program has recommended disapproval of your application for variance in the case of the above reference property. The granting of variances from established standards is for relieving hardships where it can be clearly shown that the public's health will not be impaired and where pollution of groundwater or surface water will not result, where no reasonable alternative exists, and where the hardship was not intentionally caused by the action of the applicant. The advisory committee's recommendation was based on the failure of the information provided to satisfy the committee that the hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant, no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage, or the discharge from the system will not adversely affect the health of the public. I concur with the advisory committee's recommendation and hereby deny your variance request. Subsequently, Petitioner requested and was granted a formal hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, on the denial of Petitioner's application for a variance. The Petitioner intends to locate the OSTDS on the Property. The tank and drain field for the OSTDS will be located approximately 125 feet from the basin. The City of Winter Haven's Sewage System is not available to the Property. The Park's existing STS does not have adequate capacity to accept the sewage that will be generated by the Property. There is no publicly-owned or investor-owned sewage system capable of being connected to the plumbing of the Property. Petitioner testified that the estimated cost of increasing the capacity of the Park's Sewage System to accommodate service to the three additional lots was $30,000.00 - $40,000.00. However, Petitioner presented no evidence as to how the estimate was determined. The projected daily domestic sewage flow from the Property is less than 1,500 gallons per acre per day. The Property contains 1.78 acres and there will be less than four lots per acre. In a letter dated October 17, 1997, from W. R. Cover, a professional engineer with Cover Engineering, Inc., Mr. Cover expresses the following opinion: The location of these proposed mobile homes is such that a septic system will not cause adverse effects or impacts on the environment or public health. The unit will be located so as not to significantly degrade groundwater or surface waters. There is no reasonable alternative for the treatment of the sewage in view of the fact that it would be an additional financial burden to attempt to connect these units to the existing sewage treatment plant Mr. Cover did not testify at the hearing. However, the letter was received as evidence without objection from the Department. Petitioner has failed to present sufficient evidence to show that: (a) no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage, and (b) the discharge from the Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or the public or significantly degrade groundwater or surface waters.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for variance from the requirements of Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes and Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Robert J. Antonello, Esquire Antonello, Fegers and Cea Post Office Box 7692 Winter Haven, Florida 33883-7692 Roland Reis, Esquire Department of Health 1290 Golfview Avenue, 4th Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-0293
